But
having a camera in a police car is about more than just supporting the
testimony of an officer or helping a citizen escape a bad rap. Passersby
caught on camera may turn out to be potential witnesses to a crime.
Cars driving erratically at one moment may be involved in a hit and run
moments later.

In an era when every mom-and-pop store has security
cameras and every other grandmother carries a phone that shoots video,
there’s really no excuse for failing to install and use cameras in
police cruisers.

Moriarty’s bill even established a funding
mechanism through a surcharge on drunk-driving fines. Unfortunately, the
bill doesn’t require retrofitting of older patrol cars with cameras,
just their installation in newly purchased vehicles. It will take some
time to work out a way to fund that larger expense of putting the video
systems in older cars. Moriarty’s bill, at least, would have started the
ball rolling.

Especially frustrating — to both Moriarty and us —
is that Christie, with his pocket veto at the end of the session, wasn’t
compelled to issue a veto statement that explained his reasons. If
there’s a technical issue with the bill, the governor ought to disclose
it.

Assemblyman Moriarty should reintroduce the bill in the new
session so the Legislature can get it back to the governor. Perhaps by
then Christie will say why he wants both officers and citizens denied
the protection of a video record.